Skip to main content
10:00 am
access and bicycle way that is proposed right around the perimeter of the piers and then in blue lines that depict some of the major ways of accessing up into the entry plaza for the primary entry into the arean a there is a second entry at the lower level for events non basketball events and that will provide an alternative way into the arena. now we have been studying the egress out of the venue very carefully because when people arrive to an event it's over a longer time period. they're flowing in in a less congested way over a greater length of time, but when they leave an event they want to move towards their destination,
10:01 am
either public transportation or some other venue, and what we have done is we have intentionally designed a number of egress points that will take people to their prime -- and we have this that allows people to walk around to think what they're doing next and not be creating a lot of dense pedestrian traffic right on the street edge. and just by comparison you can see the red dots on the right of the two entry and exit primary entry
10:02 am
points into the arena and you can see that green plaza and the distance that -- those points are from the embarcadero. in contrast if you look at the and this is detailed view of brandon street. we're proposed single entry point in and out of the garage. you can see that in blue and these lines are in yellow and more importantly and coming from the upper terraces that
10:03 am
eliminates that point of conflict at bryant street so we are studying this in detail and at this point i will hand to the more detailed transportation presentation. thank you>> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. peter albert from mta. i will talk about our approach to handling
10:04 am
transportation and not for just this project but there is a lot of change set for the waterfront and not set within one boundary and connects neighborhoods across the boundaries. this idea is to do that and get out ahead of projects proposed and even projects we know are coming in the next months. we are talking about this one today and i am working with others and taking stock of all of the developments in the general waterfront area. the reason for this taking a step back we want to make sure that the traffic planners and the community and anyone with a vested interest in transportation take this opportunity to get out of the ahead of the environmental reviews and register community input and give us a head start in fix being the problems and
10:05 am
identifying the issues and fixing long-term gaps and mitigation measures out of environmental review that we have the best projects working with anybody who is responsible for moving people in the bay area getting their input now so we can shape good solutions and finally leverage funding and the timing in place as they're needed. so the assessment area that we're talking about is actually broader than this diagram will show but what i think is important these are three projects i am working closely on. pier 70. sea wall 330 and these across the street. but we don't start from a cold start. we have been doing a lot of work already with the community and understanding how to make the trpg in the waterfront work better. i have been to this commission talking about america's cup. that was
10:06 am
a tremendously important experience. actually we treated that input from the outreach seriously and we rowntded up the input we got from america's cup and through the progress reports and at the cac meetings of this project and at the hearing we got input as well and on the website you will see pages of community input we managed and structured and categorized it and it's shaping this assessment for us. but i don't want to down play how important it was to play with the america's cup. we piloted and tried our hand at new things and erks lie and a project and carried hundreds of people and that is a pilot project that could have a
10:07 am
legacy. we have the bike sharing program this spring and we work with the companies to do a proxy bike sharing program and get it place for the america's cup and valet parking and giving pedestrians real time estimates how long it goes from point a, say the ballpark to the ferry building and helping visitors orient themselves around the waterfront and this is a advantage that we have piloted and try our hand at some solutions. we had a meeting already and we wanted to make sure everybody understood the big picture. what we did before the roll your she was up part of the workshop we outlined what the assessment was supposed to do and understand the networks that serve the area. it's understanding which projects and not just transportation but which ones are coming down the
10:08 am
pipeline and when and a lot of the challenge is understanding when the solutions are already in the books are serving the developments when they come online and inform the ceqa process. to get out ahead of the environmental review is important for us in the transportation world. rather react to it in the last month we are doing this assessment now even before the eir started. we had good attendance of 60 people and six tables. they had maps. these are res deptds and advocates and knew the waterfront well. they pinpointed the problems and gave ideas that need to be solved and we went through and got the top six issues in the discussion. we got together and summarized those and set next steps. but these are some of the graphics -- well, these are some of the graphics that we had and it's so important to understand that
10:09 am
transportation isn't a snapshot. it's ongoing development process. for instance the transit network that you see in the top is both local and regional and we showed in dotted lines what is coming down the line, central subway, and the loop for mission bay and the loop in chinatown and all happening at different times and part of the assessment is looking at when and get them in place when needed. we looked at the bay trial and the bicycle network what is needed and proposed and parking and north of the building and lots or garages and looking how they relate to the arterial net works that feed the freeways and you get a map that would be otherwise impossible to understand and too many colored lines and network but it shows
10:10 am
how dense and multimodal this network is. these circles radiated out here show quarter mile and half mile and mile radius. we could do that anywhere and how many bus stations and terminals and bart and that informs these land use projects. now in addition to the networks are the list of projects themselves. we identified three phases. 12013 to 2017 and out to two 032 because there are different waves happening and different transportation improvements slaitded to come on line. it might be at the end of the assessment we might jump start a project because a major development is happening the year before so it's this kind of clarity understand whag is going on in the land use realm, the
10:11 am
terminal and the projects and mission rock at one side and understand what all of these things or some of the muni routes coming fall into place. so just a sample of some of the outcomes of the workshop. we had six maps and summaries. these were they written on and saw gaps and things needed to happen. it's hard to read it but it's there and on the website and if you look on piers 30-32 you will see this but there is a list of comments so we know the transit and parking issues. that's helping us make sure as we work with engineers they're getting the input from the people that live and work about this area and the general responsibility in fixing transportation solutions, but the next steps and we're very much at the beginning of the assessment, are the workshops
10:12 am
on december 4. one comment we heard loud and clear "give us land use information to match the transportation information" so we have maps that will be layered on top of the transportation networks so we can see where people are living and where the networks need to go and we had an important comment "what are the goals and objectives of the assessment?" . it's one thing to have engineers and it's another that we understand quality of life and what makes san francisco successful? pedestrian first and transportation priority and the land use plans and those are things that we would incorporate and taking the inventory of all the goals and objectives and making sure they speak to this area and if need be refined for
10:13 am
the outcomes. if we have the goals and networks and the networks and understanding when they come online one thing that would be helpful is try our hand at a few solution ideas . for instance if the neighbors gave the top six concerns and we ran it past goals and objectives and i can't make the cal train because it's congested around the giants game and sometimes they don't go beyond second street very quickly. well, there are solutions to put in place. there are opportunities and check them against the golden objectives and at the end of the day we understand the priorities and the goals of the community and the city and we understand what is happening and when both in transportation and land use, our next responsibility would be to come up with solutions that make sense and that get out ahead of the environmental, so i'm very interested in this process just like we did with the people plan in america's cup and before the environmental. the environmental kicked in and gave
10:14 am
us great data and back in the people plan and had a plan that was smart and a environmental that had great mitigation measures and i think that is a great proposead and recommendation for getting ahead of the issue and vetting them in the project and with they will turn it over to brad for his report. >> good afternoon commissioners. brad benson special projects manager representing the port staff on the negotiating team. so we wanted to take a moment to explain to both the commission and the public the difference phases of this proposed negotiations for the project. city staff has been working and the port and owed staff in consultation with the city attorney working with the warriors to come up with a
10:15 am
conceptual framework for the business deal which is really looking at the cost to rehabilitate piers 30-32 so it's seismically sound and can support the multi-purpose venue on it, and how the warriors will initially finance that investment and how the city would repay that investment to public property, and jennifer mattes will go over that a little more detail but that conceptual framework is published to this point to support the fiscal feasibility finding and with these projects the port and city staff will pursue policy approvals with a term sheet with fiscal approval. it was the staff's suggestion to separate the two and really the
10:16 am
fiscal feasibility finding, again which jennifer will speak to, is necessary to start environmental review, and i think we're all aware of the aggressive schedule that this project is under taking, and we want to make sure at the staff level we are maximizing the time available for environmental review. that's a important component of this project so getting passed fiscal feasibility and starting environmental review with all of the inputs peter was just talk about is really going to maximize the public's opportunity to understand the project in all of its complexity. the next phase of the negotiation is really going to final liezing that term sheet and the term sheet will typically articulate all of the business terms of the transaction. we hope to bring that term sheet to the port commission and if approved by the port commission to the
10:17 am
board of supervisors in the period between february 15 and april of 2013, and the issues that we think that we will be addressing are not currently addressed in the conceptual framework go to a number of important points they would like to describe now. first we're in a public process already with an initial conceptual design that is very exciting. there will be comment whether through the cac format or other public meetings that we're holding on the project and we will need to define the project. we will be looking in particular ideas about the potential maritime use of the east berth of piers 30-32, an important deep water berth. we are also coordinating with the fire department. we have
10:18 am
department chief here representing the chief and we are excited about hearing the fire boat at this location, but it needs to serve the fire department's particular mission involving the fire boat, so there maybe refinements to the project around that, and we're also going to be looking at the historic preservation issues. reds java house is a contributing resource to the national district and how is that facility treated in the overall development? other issues that we will be addressing. we are contemplating mechanisms to repay the warriors that would include potential infrastructure financial proceeds so we want to make sure as we are issuing that debt to repay the initial private investments that there is appropriate level of security around that. we have used an
10:19 am
appraisal process that jennifer will talk about and come up with the value of sea wall 330 and peas 30-32 and we will look at that new york what forms of participation. >> >> rent maybe appropriate and generally speaking how we can repay the private investment as quickly as possible, and finally and i think this is something that the public really wants to hear. the term sheet needs to articulate the way the city plans to pay for the services to address neighborhood impacts so if there are a number of police officers required around the larger events how specifically is the city planning on paying for the police officers? if dwd crews need to be dispatched around the facility how is that
10:20 am
funding going to work? and maybe the most important issue -- there is additional transit service required to get people to and from the site and how when muni is already stressed financially how does the city plan to address those transportation needs? so we will work with the warriors and staff and the board with those issues and look forward to coming to you in april or before for your consideration of that, and finally after environmental review is complete then we would bring to both the port commission and the board of supervisors the more detailed transaction documents associated with the project that are typical in a development deal like this, and we would use the period of environmental review and permitting to negotiate all of those transaction documents, so now i would like to invite jennifer mattes up. thank you.
10:21 am
>> i just want to acknowledge for everyone listening this is a long presentation and i appreciate everyone's patience. there is a lot to cover. we have been busy over the last months trying to develop this proposal from many different facets. we have been looking at the business deal and transportation and design and it's a lot at once . at the board of supervisors we're doing this in two hearings and looking at fiscal feasibility tomorrow and design and transportation next monday in an informational hearing so i want to thank folks. the next piece of the presentation will be familiar to some members of the public that have come to the cac meetings and the members of the commission that i briefed in close session and i want to discuss the conceptual framework that in whichs the feasibility report that is now before the
10:22 am
board. as brad mentioned there was appraisal done on the two sites prior to negotiating the conceptual framework that looked at the fair market value of both a lease of sea wall lot 330 and a sale as well as piers lot 30-32 that had current zoning but improved site for 30-32 and those are the values to model in the conceptual framework, so the central terms of the conceptual framework that the warriors will privately finance all of the development on both sites and the city will reimburse them for certain infrastructure for certain agreed upon improvements to infrastructure. that is capped at $120,000,000.13% cost of capital return that would agree on the expenditures made
10:23 am
to improve public infrastructure. what's important in addition there being a hard cap on the amount of infrastructure spend, there's also a limited number of sources that the warriors would be eligible to get reimbursed from. rent credits from pier 30-32, the sale of saw wall 30 and the value generated from the warrioros both sites. it's anticipated that would be collected to reimburse the warriors in a lump sum payment to pay down the infrastructure cost, so the 13% cost of capital has attracted a great deal of attention in the last few days and i would like to take a moment and put it in context and describe it a wa that hopefully eliminates some of the confusion. the 13% cost of
10:24 am
capital reflects the cost of the money that the warriors would have to -- it reflects the cost and risk involved in financing public infrastructure. what we are proposing in this deal is asking them to pay for improvements to our property and the cost for borrowing that money is high for any developer because it's risky money. that is money that doesn't have a return built into it. in order to get a return for money invested in infrastructure the entity doing the infrastructure has to do something next. they either have to sell the improved property or build upon it before there is potential for return and lenders know that. it's risky in the market to get that money. in addition there are two risks that the warriors bear in the conceptual framework as negotiated. one is if the cost for repairing the subtracture
10:25 am
exceed $120 million they will not be reimbursed for that and if the sources do not fully repay them for their subtracture spend regardless of the amount there is no other recourse there is no other bucket to go to for reimbursement so really the combination of the cost of the money, the cost of the funds being expended on the city's behalf and the risk taken by the warriors when they spend the money lead to the negotiated 13% cost of capital. by way of comparison when this type of money -- this is not unusual. i think what is really important to understand is that the city in its common practice and the port too -- i don't want to speak entirely for the port and i ask monique and the port to chime in. when the city asks
10:26 am
private developers to contribute to the cost of infrastructure we do that in order to protect our balance sheet, and not put our public finance tools into what are risky public /private partnerships in ones we can often find value to repay the developers from the value created. i'm not sure if i said clearly but if you look at hunter's point shipyard and treasure island and what we're looking at doing what happened down the port to a smaller degree and developers were asked to invest in the infrastructure and there is a rate for the capital in order to take into account the cost of borrowing those funds and the risk they're taking in improving our infrastructure, so this is really a common practice, and in the case of this particular deal when we're talking about repaying at a 13% interest what
10:27 am
we're talking about is -- what we're talking about is repaying the warriors largely through the value that they created, either through the property tax increment they created by building vertical structures, by building the arena, building the open space, retail, condos on the site that creates the property tax as well as the value -- the rent is only realizable if the subtracture -- the number i showed you is only available if the subtracture is improved. the two examples of the sprint center and barklies are not apples to apples because all sports venues we investigate are unique financing structures but these are examples of projects in which david equity
10:28 am
was invested in a sport's facility and the return received by that investor for that investment. so other key provisions of the conceptual framework is that we may agree on other improvements which would be built and financed by the warriors and then reimbursed by the city and one is the fire boats and excited to move forward on and think there is synergy moving the boat facility and engineer services further south and allowing to have those activities colocated on this pier. the warriors will pay all development impact fees. we have an agreement that the port will receive 1% of proceeds from sales of condos located on sea wall lot 330 and brad mentions this benchmarks the motion of
10:29 am
having ongoing funding stream to pay for quality of life issues. brad covers the items in the sheet and in the interest of time and operations and as well as the community benefits and work force agreement. so the fiscal feasibility analysis -- another concern i have heard over the last few days is that this analysis was not vetted adequately at the advisory committee. i presented the findings on october 16. the report came out october 23 and was distributed to the board of supervisors, to you all, to members of the public and the cac. the conclusions did not change from the time i made the presentation and in fact this presentation you're about to see is the same one i made to the cac and the same one i'm making to the board of supervisors tomorrow, so i just want to k

tv
[untitled]
December 2, 2012 10:00am-10:30am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY America 5, Us 5, Jennifer 2, The City 2, Jennifer Mattes 2, Mta 1, Embarcadero 1, New York 1, Peter Albert 1, Chinatown 1, Brad Benson 1, San Francisco 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color